Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Warring Rivals In Sudan Vow To Help Evacuate Foreigners; Supreme Court Preserves Abortion Drug Access, For Now; Official: Canada Set To Provide Americans Access To Abortion Pill; President Biden Set To Formally Announce Reelection Bid Tuesday; Trump Picks Up Several Endorsements Over Ron DeSantis; Car Thefts Prompt Recall Push For Hyundai, Kia Models; "King Charles" To Debut On CNN This Fall; Seven Miles of CA Beaches Closed After 250K Gallon Sewage Spill. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 22, 2023 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:03]
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST: You know, those like my buddy, John Timothy said or the guys who are -- and they are guys, committing all the crime, no, not for them.
Hey, nine o'clock this week, I'm guest hosting here on CNN, and I hope that you'll be watching, Monday through Thursday this week. 9:00 P.M. Have a great day.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.
We begin this hour with Americans caught up in the escalating crisis in Sudan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(GUNSHOTS)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: Just minutes ago, the U.S. State Department announced, it will carry out a military-assisted evacuation of government personnel if the crisis worsens. In the past week, more than 400 people have died since two rival generals first led their forces into a battle for control of the country. That death toll includes at least one American.
Both Sudan's army and its paramilitary rival, the RSF, say they will help evacuate foreign nationals. The U.S. is making preparations to get diplomatic personnel right -- out right now. But the White House says, private citizens should not expect an evacuation.
We have correspondents and military expert here to help us tackle all of the angles of the story. Let's begin with CNN's Larry Madowo live in Nairobi, Kenya. Larry, I know things are very fluid at the moment, but what's the latest on these evacuations? LARRY MADOWO, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Jim, right now, these evacuations are taking place out of Sudan after the two warring sides in this conflict both agreed, after pressure from several foreign nations, that the diplomats, their staff at the embassies and some nationals be evacuated out of the country, so the rapid support forces, the powerful paramilitary group that's been involved in this conflict, since last Saturday, with the Sudanese military, both agreed that they would reopen the airports and to pause fighting to allow nations like the U.S., the U.K., France, and China to evacuate their citizens.
So far, we have seen several ships arrive in Jeddah, that's in Saudi Arabia, is a closest port from the port of Sudan, in the East of the country, where many convoys have been leading. It's a dangerous journey. And the U.S. is warning citizens not to make that journey on their own.
If they do so, they are taking it at their own risk. The U.S. State Department has also warned in a new guidance from the Embassy in Khartoum today that it is too dangerous to coordinate any evacuation of private citizens. The only thing at this point is for diplomats and the U.S. embassy staff in Khartoum, Jim.
ACOSTA: And, Larry, where does the ceasefire stand right now? Is it holding?
MADOWO: Officially, we're still supposed to be in the ceasefire. One more day, Sunday, is supposed to be the third day of this ceasefire that it was agreed to by both sides. And officially, that ceasefire was broken almost instantly. Each side has blamed the other for violating it.
This is the fourth ceasefire that's failed since this conflict broke out on Saturday. And some of the worst fighting we've been seen has been in the capital of Khartoum, around the presidential palace, and also around where the general command headquarters is. That's where the arm [ph] is located.
And this is also places where very close to residential areas where stray bullets and projections have been making their way into people's homes. And so people have been hunkering down, afraid for their lives, staying close to their families, even as they're running out of food and water and medicine. And, yet, it's not safe to go outside.
ACOSTA: All right. Larry Madowo, thank you very much for that update. We'll get back to you. We appreciate it very much.
Now, let's go to the White House with CNN's Kevin Liptak. Kevin, the White House is defending this decision to not evacuate private U.S. citizens. What else are you hearing from the administration?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, certainly they're watching this very closely here at the White House. They are not saying at this point that they've made the decision to evacuate U.S. government personnel, but certainly they're watching that very closely. We did just hear from the State Department that all U.S. government employees are accounted for and at a safe location. And I also talked to an NSC official who said that they've made clear to both sides that they are responsible for ensuring the protection of civilians and non- combatants.
Now over the past week, President Biden has taken steps to prepare for the eventual evacuation of American government personnel including a pre-positioning military assets and equipment in neighboring Djibouti. He's also works to consolidate the government personnel who are in Khartoum to the American embassy there, that's been described to me as a fortress.
But throughout at all, they've made clear that these preparations apply only to U.S. government employees and that private citizens who remain in Sudan could not expect a U.S. military evacuation.
Listen to how John Kirby with the National Security Council described that thinking yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[16:05:59]
JOHN KIRBY, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SPOKESMAN: As we have said, Americans should have no expectation that there's going to be a U.S. government evacuation to help them get out, that remains the case.
And right now, Wolf, the tension and the tension and the violence is bad enough inside Khartoum, that that our strong recommendation to Americans who haven't taken our warnings and gotten out should stay in place, should find a place to find that secure and safe and not move because the airport is not up and operating.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LIPTAK: Now, looming over all of this, of course, is the specter of that chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2020 or 20221. Of course, no one wants a repeat of that the U.S. government, the White House says that they have taken steps to avoid some of the mistakes that were made there, but certainly this is a situation that will be unfolding over the next hours and days. And that will be very closely monitored here at the White House, Jim.
ACOSTA: All right. Kevin Liptak at the White House, thanks very much.
Let's continue this conversation. I want to bring in retired Major General James Spider Marks. General Marks, great to see you as always. The White House says it's not standard procedure to evacuate American citizens living abroad. What do you make of that announcement? And what can be done here realistically speaking?
JAMES MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, let's be frank that when U.S. citizens are living as private citizens, not part of the government apparatus overseas, they have an obligation to declare themselves. So at least the U.S. embassy is aware of their presence. But there is an obligation, the United States government has, to ensure the safe transit of U.S. citizens wherever they are. But bear in mind, they're not protected by any international bodies much like government personnel and military personnel, where you have a status and forces agreement with the host nation, you're there at the behest and -- at the behest of that government at their request. And so we remain there.
But the U.S. reserves the right to provide those kinds of legal authorities, if you will, in their own hands and not defer to the host nation. So a situation like this is incredibly chaotic, as described. Look, Sudan is in the middle of a civil war right now. The ceasefire is probably very, very tenuous
And the government is now -- our government is now trying to make a determination as to whether there will be a full evacuation of all government personnel that are a part of the embassy staff. And I think that's probably the extent of U.S. presence, authorized presence in the country. There may be other agencies, but they would be associated with the embassy.
And then there are also all those family members associated, so you could see possibly a scaled or a phased departure where you have a noncombatant evacuation, where those folks are depart -- the family members depart under some type of military exercise, military control, U.S. military control, hopefully, with the support of a host nation, the U.S. military does not fight its way in, and then try to bring U.S. citizens out and fight their way out. That's horrible scenario.
What we saw in Afghanistan was a far different one, because of the vast number of Afghan citizens that were waiting for visa type determinations. That's why those images and that -- those images are horrible. And that experience was incredibly tragic because of the vast numbers. I would hope that in Khartoum, it would be a far more precise number.
ACOSTA: Yes. And, General, the State Department estimates that there are about 16,000 Americans in Sudan, most are dual nationals. I mean, what is the danger right now for those Americans?
MARKS: Well, let's look at the ceasefire. The ceasefire is probably only relevant to the urban area in and around the airport, within Khartoum where those other 16,000 Americans, dual citizens are located could be throughout the Sudan, which is an incredibly large country. So that becomes a challenge if you have these disparate pockets of U.S. citizens.
That's what John Kirby was talking about in terms of the magnitude of that type of an evacuation. It would be phenomenal. Unless there's been a call to get everybody into a couple of very precise locations. This will be something that would be incredibly difficult for the United States, and especially led by the military to execute.
ACOSTA: And could this blow up into an all-out civil war that would potentially destabilize that region? MARKS: Of course, it could, in fact, I'd say it's already in a civil war. Look, you have these two competing military factions. One is the Sudanese military, then you have this counterinsurgency force that exists. One is the professional military, one is this, again, kind of a counter force, if you will, for lack of a better term, a civil war already exists.
And Sudan is important because of its location next to the Red Sea or U.S. military transits that as a matter of routine and you've got rare earth minerals. The competition for those are very, very pronounced. That's why, you know, there's a possible intersection of Russian interests, Chinese interests, United States interests.
[16:10:17]
This could be -- maybe at the far end of the possibility, this could be an opportunity for those three nations to try to cooperate to put a lid on this thing, because the competition exists and it's real. We're talking about gold, uranium, cobalt, all of those are absolutely necessary for an increasingly, you know, semiconductor-led world.
ACOSTA: All right. General James Spider Marks, great to talk to you as always. We appreciate it. Thanks so much.
MARKS: Thank you, Jim.
ACOSTA: All right, thanks. So what is next after the Supreme Court protects access to a widely used abortion drug for now? We'll break it all down.
And in the next hour, lawmakers here in Washington make a new push to codify Roe versus Wade. I'll ask Democratic senator, Tina Smith, of Minnesota.
Plus, seven miles of public beach in California now shut down. The absolutely disgusting reason why swimmers are supposed to stay out of the water. That's coming up right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:15:19]
ACOSTA: Abortion rights supporters are cautiously celebrating today after the Supreme Court moved to preserve access to a commonly used abortion drug. The ruling allows doctors to continue prescribing mifepristone and states that allow it, but it's highly -- it's unlikely the High Court ruling will be the final word on regulation of the drug.
The case that challenged mifepristone's 23-year-old FDA approval heads back to the Fifth Circuit court for an appeal on May the 17th. The court did not explain why it moved to block restrictions of the drug.
Caroline Kitchener joins us now she's a national political reporter who covers abortion for The Washington Post. Caroline, great to see you again. Access to mifepristone is safe for now. But what about this appeals process? I mean, this is going to continue to drag out, I suppose.
CAROLINE KITCHENER, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: We're certainly in for a very long road here, Jim. As you said, it's going to go back to the Fifth Circuit. After that, you know, you would assume that whoever loses is going to ask the Supreme Court to take it up again. And then it will be up to the High Court, whether they decline to take the case, or you know, whether it becomes one of the cases that they consider, you know, in the following year on their sort of regular schedule.
So, I think the bottom line here is that for the foreseeable future, for many months, likely, mifepristone is going to be on the market, nothing is going to change. But, you know, and in the coming months, maybe even next year, you know, we could -- we could see that change.
ACOSTA: And so I -- let's delve into that. This issue could make its way back to the Supreme Court, right, and the conservative majority could potentially ban the use of this pill down the road. That might still happen.
KITCHENER: It's definitely still a possibility. I mean, I do think that a lot of abortion rights supporters are feeling very optimistic with the court coming down in the way that they did this time around. But it is on the table. I mean, I do think it's important to remember that, you know, in the opinions -- in the Dobbs opinion, you know, many of the justices talked about, you know, states rights, you know, passing this issue back to the states. That was something that you heard from Kavanaugh, and that -- this particular issue here would not do that.
You're talking about, you know, nationally, taking mifepristone off the market. And so, you know, I think a lot of people have some doubts about whether the justices would actually do that if they were given the chance to rule on the merits.
ACOSTA: Let's talk about Justice Samuel Alito, he wrote a dissent to this ruling claiming this in part, we put this up on screen. "The government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order."
That assertion from Alito is contrary to Biden administration official's comments that they would follow court orders even as they continued to see these appeals play out. I believe even the president has said something along those lines.
But will this tension affect how this battle plays out? Do you think -- and what did you make of what Justice Alito had to say there?
KITCHENER: I think that statement from him raised a lot of questions. It was kind of unclear where that information was coming from. Because as you said, you know, everybody in the Biden in the -- in the Biden administration that we heard from publicly said that, you know, they were not going to work whatever the court said. They were not going to kind of exercise some special kind of discretion.
So it was interesting. And I think it wasn't on a lot of people's bingo cards to see, you know, Justice Alito talking about enforcement discretion in that way. But, you know, I think it's just kind of unclear what he meant by that.
ACOSTA: Is it because he has been a little forward leaning on this abortion issue? I mean, we saw that in the Dobbs decision.
KITCHENER: Certainly. I mean, he was -- you know, he was the one to write it. But, you know, he was saying that, you know, we should go back -- you know, we should go back to the terms of use in 2016. So, you know, he was saying there was -- there was no reason not to do that while this issue made its way through the courts.
But that would come with a lot of very significant changes to how mifepristone is used and distributed. There would be no more abortion pills by mail. The generic version of the drug would have to be taken off the market. So, you know, in his version of events, you know, as he was saying that a lot of -- a lot of changes would have come about.
ACOSTA: And we know that Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented, however, the other justices' votes were not disclosed and the brief was left unsigned. I guess I was wondering what you made of that. And I guess, is it possible the conservatives on the court are recalibrating how they're going to deal with the abortion issue after some of this intense pushback from women and progressives that we've seen over the past year since the overturning of Roe vs. Wade? Or is that just us reading into things too much? I don't -- I don't mean to include you, but a lot of political observers reading into things too much.
[16:20:34]
KITCHENER: It's really hard to predict what these justices are thinking. It's impossible to predict what these justices are thinking. You know, but from everything that I've read, I mean, it -- they just made a really big ruling on abortion. And a lot of legal experts are theorizing that they are not super eager or to touch this issue again, especially so soon.
ACOSTA: Yes. And we know some stats led by Democratic governors are stocking up on abortion pills, while access is worked out in the courts. Is that something that might make its way through the courts as well? The Supreme Court could come in and say, no, this state over here can't provide abortion access to people from states over there. And so some of this is starting to become an issue that is playing out in some of these states.
KITCHENER: I think we have seen a lot of governors come out with, you know, splashing videos and pictures of stockpiling these pills. I think, you know, the bottom line is, right now, that is not necessary, it's not going to be necessary for at least the foreseeable future.
But I do think a lot of these democratic governors are really eager to put themselves out there and say, look, I am a staunch defender of abortion rights. I want to show that to you in every way that I can, even sometimes in ways that don't necessarily translate to more access, like the, you know, the stockpiling. You know, right now, at least, you know, it's not actually going to translate to more access.
ACOSTA: All right. Caroline Kitchener, thanks so much. We appreciate it.
KITCHENER: Thanks for having me.
ACOSTA: All right. You bet.
Canada is ready to offer abortion pills to Americans if the drug is restricted in the United States. That's according to a Canadian government official who says they'd have to be, quote, very thoughtful about how they do that since they don't want to, they say, in danger of further women who need reproductive care.
CNN's Paula Newton joins us live from Ottawa with details. Paula, great to see you. Thanks for doing this.
Some U.S. states are preparing to prosecute people who leave their borders to get access. But Canada is being very open about the fact that they want to help out, you know, for women who want to seek this kind of reproductive care. What's going on?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. To be clear, Jim, you know, this debate isn't going on in a vacuum in the United States, right? And, you know, we just heard about how governors were keen to be heard. Well, Canada, the government in place now, the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau, is keen to be heard on this issue.
And that's why you pointed out that the minister or one of the ministers responsible actually came forward an interview which I found quite interesting, Jim, and said, yes, we are on the record saying that if mifepristone or any other abortion drug is not available in the United States, we will stand with Canadian women.
I want you to look now, Jim, at the statements that her spokesperson released to CNN in saying, "We stand in solidarity with American women standing up for their rights to access reproductive and sexual health care, including their access to abortion. We have discussed what Canada's support for American women in need might be. And those discussions are still ongoing."
Now, the minister had made those comments. You were talking about to the media before the Supreme Court had made this ruling. But since then, nothing has changed in terms of how Canada comes at this issue.
But, Jim, you brought such a good point up that she's saying that she really wants to be careful and thoughtful about how this is done. Why? Because they are concerned that they may land American women in legal jeopardy by trying to help. I'm not exactly sure, whether by mail, anything like that could ever be prosecuted, but they are continuing to discuss this.
And again, the abortion debate here has been ignited again in Canada. We even had Justin Trudeau talking about it this week and saying his -- in his words that look, our government will always be unequivocally pro-choice. But at this point, you know, Jim, it's important to point out many people on both sides of this issue did not believe that Roe v. Wade would ever be struck down and it was. So I think this puts all governments on notice to say, look, things could change in the next year. And Canada putting its marker down and saying, we're ready to help American women.
ACOSTA: All right. Paula Newton, thanks so much for that view from Ottawa. We appreciate it.
And still ahead, President Biden eyes a reelection campaign announcement next week as lawyers for his son, Hunter, are set to meet with Justice Department officials. Could the scrutiny around that probe have any impact on 2024? We'll discuss next. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:25:22]
ACOSTA: Let's delve a little deeper into last night's Supreme Court ruling, protecting access to the abortion drug, mifepristone, at least for the time being.
Joining me now to talk about it, a senior political analyst for CNN, John Avlon, and CNN political commentator, Margaret Hoover. Guys, great to see you again. Thanks so much.
Margaret, the underlying case goes to the Fifth Circuit for an appeal on May 17th. What do you see happening then? Do you think the Supreme Court has resolved this for the time being or might we on a -- might we'd be on a bit of a roller coaster ride with this?
[16:30:00]
MARGARET HOOVER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I suspect this Supreme Court will ultimately decide this. But the question, while it's being covered as though this is a question about the Supreme Court's view of the accessibility of an abortion drug, this is actually not the question that they're dealing with.
They're dealing with the separation of powers question, a constitutional question about whether the judiciary has the right and the ability to overrule the FDA when it comes to deciding whether a drug is safe or not.
And so even though, you know, we're looking at the horse race politics of this, I think that's looking at it the wrong way.
We have to look at how the judges deal with separation of powers questions in their previous decisions, how they deal with agencies versus the judiciary, and how would they deal with the FDA specifically and other scientific entities within the executive branch.
JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, and look, this is also just another chapter in the problems with politicizing the courts. You've got to judge overruling, in effect, the FDA on -- on a pill as part of these larger abortion wars.
And I think you know Roberts' attempt to make sure the center holds, and the court seems to have succeeded, despite Alito's sort of, you know, dissent --
HOOVER: For the moment.
AVLON: -- for the moment -- moment.
But this is -- this is just part of this core problem of the politicization of our courts, causing this degree of uncertainty and upheaval in people's lives.
ACOSTA: And what do you think, guys? I mean, do you think that the conservative justices on -- on the court are recalibrating a little bit as to how they're handling this issue, possibly because of all of the intense pushback that we saw from women and progressives?
Or is that just, you know, looking at the court through too much of a political lens? And I know I say that knowing full well that, I mean, the court is being viewed very much your political lens these days by everybody.
And I just wonder, is the court thinking it -- thinking about it along those lines, too?
HOOVER: I suspect not. I think the highest court of the land when it comes to this issue, we know how the justices have -- think about it, have viewed it. They were very clear in their ruling on Dobbs.
I suspect -- you know, they're -- they're the last stop on the train. What you see at the lower levels of the court is judges who are explicitly political. I mean, this judge who stopped the accessibility to Mifepristone was definitely being political.
But when you get all the way to the court, it's -- I'm not saying they don't have their own personal views of it, but they are less likely to let their own personal views influence their jurisprudence. I mean, they've spent their entire careers getting to that point.
I know I'm about to get a --
(CROSSTALK)
HOOVER: -- quibble here.
(LAUGHTER)
AVLON: Not a cool --
(CROSSTALK)
ACOSTA: Well, what about Alito, John?
(CROSSTALK)
AVLON: Yes, that's my point. I mean Alito's dissent as well as frankly his decision in his opinion in Dobbs, you know, that is not somebody who is, you know, calling balls and strikes and thinking about precedent and stare decisis.
He's clearly venting his spleen a lot from an ideological perspective, from a culture war ideological perspective. And that's part of the problem.
And Justice Roberts, I think, understands, Chief Justice Roberts, the credibility of the court declines when people see it becoming more ideological and partisan in its -- in its deliberations. And that's what Alito has become the poster child for.
ACOSTA: Well, let's talk about President Biden. He's expected to formally announce on Tuesday that he will run for reelection. He's facing a number of challenges, including the economy and potentially some of these legal questions for his son, Hunter.
What do you think, to either one of you?
Maybe to you, Margaret, first.
Do you think this will end some of the speculation over whether the president is actually going to run or might he announced and we'll still have that speculation?
HOOVER: Yes. Well, I think if he announces that he's running for president, the speculation will thus have ended.
ACOSTA: OK.
AVLON: Yes.
HOOVER: Does that mean any of these questions will go away? No, they'll pick up. Especially as we learned that the campaign was previously quite involved in trying to kill the Hunter Biden story and kill the Republican pursuit of the facts and the truth behind the Hunter Biden story.
My husband's also giving me the side eye, but it looks like there's a bit more to the story maybe then we know about.
And look, witch hunts are not useful in American politics, especially during an enormously polarized time.
On the other hand, the American people need to understand what access the Bidens had to certain business deals --
AVLON: Sure
HOOVER: -- that maybe regular Americans don't have. That's fair game to me. And transparency is the best disinfectant for all of these things. AVLON: Yes. Let's separate these two things. I mean, there's been a
lot of questions around Biden, would he actually run for a second term.
Not only because he'd be 86 at the end of a second term, but because he sort of campaigned initially as someone who could be a check on Donald Trump and then pass the torch to new generations.
You know, the Democratic Party has rallied behind him. And I think Trump's rise in the Republican rankings have sort of forced Biden's hand as someone who's not going to squander that advantage when it comes against the former president.
[16:35:03]
So this -- this is moving forward, barring some unforeseen event.
With regard to Hunter Biden, look, principle remains the same, equal justice under law. Even the president's son. Perhaps especially the president's son should be held to the exact same standards as any other citizen.
And so his lawyers are apparently meeting the Justice Department. It's important that Merrick Garland has made good on his commitment to stay out entirely of this inquiry.
And whatever it is, it needs to be handled by the books. Equal justice under law. That's the concept that needs to be defended.
ACOSTA: And I mean, you mentioned Trump and DeSantis. This past week, we saw former President Trump picked up a number of endorsements from Republican members of Congress, seemingly at the expense of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who visited Washington this past week to drum up support for his expected campaign.
If you're inside the DeSantis camp, aren't you worried about this at this point? And what does it say about the current state of the Republican Party?
I mean, I suppose some of these members are just thinking they don't want to get primaried. They got to get behind Trump. It's the same dynamic we've seen over and over again.
HOOVER: Yes, yes. Hey, hey, newsflash, nothing's changed. Donald Trump still owns the center hurt within the base of the Republican Party.
And DeSantis is at a little bit of a disadvantage because he hasn't declared. He's still in the middle of a legislative session so we can't go, you know, full, you know, blazing against Trump.
But I have been of the view for a long time -- and I've said on this program with you, Jim and others -- I think DeSantis may be a bit of a paper tiger here.
We'll see if he ever gets in the race, whether he is able to stand up to Donald Trump. But it wasn't a good week for him for sure. AVLON: No. But and, look, it's not good when representatives from --
you know, when members of Congress from Florida, from his home state, are endorsing Donald Trump instead of Ron DeSantis. That's not a sign of strength.
But the these -- folks who are backing Donald Trump at this point, let's be very clear, they are making a moral decision to back somebody who tried to overturn an election.
And that speaks to the deeper problem of polarization, hyper- partisanship, exactly as you say. They're just terrified of a primary.
The Republican Party should have the courage to stand by principles and support democracy and not somebody who tried to overturn it.
ACOSTA: Well, so that leads me, what about some of these rumblings about former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who's obviously behind some of these rumblings.
But he -- you know, he has gone after DeSantis as well. He's criticized the Florida governor over his battle with Disney.
Could Christie emerge as the alternative to Trump? I mean, I know there's the knock on Christie that, yes, he, you know, helped debate prep Trump and that sort of thing. He was close to Trump and so on. So how could he be the anti-Trump.
But you know, you can only go to the -- to war with the army that you have --
(CROSSTALK)
ACOSTA: -- as they say.
(CROSSTALK)
HOOVER: I think, the unexpected Rumsfeld -- was an unexpected Rumsfeld reference, wasn't it?
ACOSTA: Yes, yes.
HOOVER: You know, look, Christie, he -- you can't go to the war with the army you have if you're not in the in the war, right? Chris Christie needs to declare his candidacy and then he can get in.
You know, what I suspect he views his strength as diminishing Donald Trump's front-runner status. I think he is not afraid to go after Trump and but try to solidify as much of the mainstream part of the party that exists while -- while hammering Trump where he knows Trump is weak.
And he has known Donald Trump for 20-plus years. He does think that he has key insights into how to reveal his weaknesses on the campaign trail. And I think that's a worthwhile -- worthwhile cause.
AVLON: And he clearly has the stones to call them out directly, which a lot of Republicans tiptoe around him. Instead, he's probably betting he can triangulate to some extent with this Trump base because of his own brash style. But we'll see.
Republicans need to have the courage of their convictions. And if they -- they think Donald Trump would be -- a new poll came out today, saying 70 percent of Americans do not want Donald Trump to run for reelection.
ACOSTA: Right.
AVLON: Over 40 percent of Republicans. Look, there's an opening here for someone who's got the courage of their conflictions - convictions. And --
HOOVER: And inflections?
(LAUGHTER)
AVLON: -- in the case of -- Chris Christie will make a new word, conflictions.
ACOSTA: There might be some conflictions there, no question about it.
All right, well, great to see you guys. Thanks so much. John and Margaret, have a great weekend. Appreciate it.
(CROSSTALK)
ACOSTA: All right, a viral social media trend has put a spotlight on how easy it is apparently to steal certain Hyundai and Kia cars. Now officials from 17 states and the District of Columbia want them recalled. What the companies are saying next.
[16:39:35]
You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ACOSTA: More than a dozen attorneys general are urging a federal recall of Hyundai and Kia vehicles, citing an alarming wave of thefts in the last few years.
Specifically, they're concerned about certain cars built between 2011 and 2022 that don't have electronic immobilizers, leaving ignition switches that are easy to bypass.
Stealing those cars actually became a how-to video trend on social media.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I see they tried to steal my kill, bro.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They busted out the back window and then they broke off the locking mechanism to be able to actually steal it. (END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: Let's bring in CNN's Polo Sandoval live in New York.
Polo, who are these attorneys general? They're taking action. What are they saying?
POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So what they're saying that they are calling on the federal government to issue a recall on certain kinds of Kia and Hyundai vehicles, saying that the manufacturers of these vehicles have failed to act, respond or address this increase in car theft.
Just look at the map here, Jim. These are the A.G.s that are being led by California's attorney general, actually.
And I should mention exactly what's in this letter here that's been addressed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The coalition of those attorneys general are requesting a recall of what they're describing as "unsafe Hyundai and Kia vehicles manufactured between 2011 and 2022."
[16:45:05]
As I read this letter here, Jim, they are specifically saying that these vehicles in question, they are able to bypass ignition switches.
And the lack of engine mobilizers that actually make them particularly vulnerable to theft, vehicles such as the Hyundai Santa Fe, Tucson, as well as the Kia Forte and Sportage, when equipped with turnkey ignitions, as opposed to cars that have that, you know, a button that you push to start it up.
That those are the vehicles that are roughly twice as likely to actually be stolen.
Now, in terms of what the federal government is saying, Jim, they say that this is going to be outside of their purview. So this is going to be something for the police.
And then finally, what the automakers are saying, they are offering free software patches they say will fix the problem as well.
Jim, back to you.
ACOSTA: All right, Polo Sandoval, thank you very much.
It's official. "KING CHARLES," a brand-new show hosted by world- winning journalist, Gayle King, and NBA superstar, Charles Barkley, will debut on Wednesday nights this fall on CNN.
They made the announcement this afternoon on TNT's NBA tip off. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHARLES BARKLEY, CNN CO-HOST, "KING CHARLES": I know she's going to be a straight shooter. And, you know, I'm going to be a straight shooter.
And when we got together for lunch, we just started talking about random things, and it was really curious that we had different opinions, which is fine. Like we weren't --
GAYLE KING, CO-HOST, "KING CHARLES": I was correct. It was wrong.
(LAUGHTER)
KING: Continue, dear. Go ahead.
BARKLEY: But we were like, all I want is people, even if I disagree with them, I want them to be honest with me. I don't want them saying things to get clickbait.
That -- that's what drives me crazy about our people in our profession right now. We're not trying to get people to click on.
KING: Right.
BARKLEY: I know she's going to be fair and honest. And I -- you know, I'm going to do the same thing.
KING: I feel that about him, too. And I think, you know, you just want a civil conversation. I like, too, that it's no holds barred. You know, I'm very aware of people are watching. I don't think that I can just go on and say anything. I don't know how you feel about that.
But I -- you know, I think that, you know, decorum and courtesy and kindness always works.
But everybody I know has an opinion about something. I just think we have to figure out a way to have a good conversation without tearing each other down. And I think that we can do that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: All right. "KING CHARLES" will be a weekly discussion of the events and people shaping our culture. The live show will feature top newsmakers and personalities at the center of the most interesting stories of the week.
We're excited to welcome our new colleagues, Gayle King and Charles Barkley, to CNN. That's "KING CHARLES." The other "KING CHARLES," Wednesday nights launching this fall right here on CNN.
Still ahead, miles of public beaches in southern California shutdown after 250,000 gallons of sewage made its way to the ocean. Yes, that much. That's a lot. We'll go live to Long Beach next.
You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:52:08]
ACOSTA: Seven miles of southern California beaches had to be shut down after 250,000 gallons of sewage spilled into the Los Angeles river when some equipment malfunctioned. The waterway flows right into the Pacific Ocean.
CNN's Camila Bernal is in Long Beach.
Camila, this -- this sounds gross. I'm sorry you have to be there. I hope folks can still enjoy the beach as it stands now.
But what more -- what more do we know about how this happened and any word on when the beaches will reopen?
CAMILA BERNAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim, it's not great. And yet people still want to be out here.
We do not know exactly when the beach is going to open again. But officials say they're going to test the water, and they're going to try to tell people as soon as they are finished testing the water when it's safe to go back in.
But as you can see, it's a beautiful day here in southern California. So many families are out enjoying the day. It's been a very wet winter here in California, and so it is finally a day when you can come out to the beach.
And when you get here, this is what you will find -- a sign that says the "beach is closed."
Unfortunately, A lot of people are out here telling me, look, I didn't even know that the beach was closed. I had no idea that there was a sewage spill.
And so unfortunately, many of these people are being told as they're getting into the water that it is unsafe to be there.
I talked to some people who went into the water and were told by the lifeguard, hey, it's better for you not to be in the water.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMEO VERRIGNI, VISITING LONG BEACH: As soon as we found out we were kind of disgusted. But what can we do now? We walk all the way to get to the cab and go home and take a shower.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERNAL: And I heard that from a lot of people, I'm going to go rinse off right now.
Look, the spill happened on Thursday. It happened about 15 miles from where we are now. But it overflowed into the streets. They were able to clean it up. But it went into the river. The L.A. river then goes into the ocean.
So that is why officials are saying, look, just don't go into the water because it's just not going to be good or healthy for you. Ironically, on Earth Day -- Jim?
ACOSTA: Yes. Not a good situation. Not why we go to the beach. We want clean water when we go to the beach. It's just a little -- a little thing to ask. It's not too much to ask.
All right, Camila Bernal, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
This weekend on "SEARCHING FOR MEXICO," Eva Longoria is exploring Jalisco, the birthplace of modern Mexican cuisine. Here's a peek.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EVA LONGORIA, ACTRESS: Well, yes. Cilantro, lemon. Wow this smells so good.
(LAUGHTER)
LONGORIA: No?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, no.
(LAUGHTER)
LONGORIA: Mmm. Wow. Rico, wow.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
LONGORIA: It's so soft. (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Si.
LONGORIA: Oh, my gosh, this broth is amazing.
[16:55:00]
(voice-over): I can see why this Jalisco stew has become as legendary as the charros (ph) who eat it. They have skillfully transformed goat meat into a pillar of Mexican gastronomy.
(on camera): This is really amazing.
(voice-over): These crafty Charros (ph) have one more trick up their sleeve.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
LONGORIA (on camera): No. Gracias.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like this.
LONGORIA: Oh, my god! That's so big. Trying to kill me my first day and they're trying to kill me. (LAUGHTER)
LONGORIA: Salute.
(CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: All right, I would not eat that pepper either.
Watch a new "EVA LONGORIA, SEARCHING FOR MEXICO" tomorrow night at 9:00 right here on CNN.
Still ahead for us, the Supreme Court is preserving access to a widely used abortion pill for now. Does Congress need to ask -- act, I should say.
We'll ask a Senator from Minnesota, which is on track to pass an abortion refuge bill about what needs to be done at the federal level. We'll talk to her in just a few moments.
You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
